1 / 12

Monitoring information for CEAFM decision making: reflections on LMMA’s learning

Monitoring information for CEAFM decision making: reflections on LMMA’s learning. Caroline Vieux- SPREP James Comley- USP. Previous experience- purpose of monitoring-J. Community/stakeholder involvement: Adaptive management Community/stakeholder learning for management

azure
Télécharger la présentation

Monitoring information for CEAFM decision making: reflections on LMMA’s learning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Monitoring information for CEAFM decision making: reflections on LMMA’s learning Caroline Vieux- SPREP James Comley- USP

  2. Previous experience- purpose of monitoring-J • Community/stakeholder involvement: • Adaptive management • Community/stakeholder learning for management • Project or organizational learning for management • Stock assessment • Project/donor M&E • Network or portfolio learning • Global or academic learning • Advocacy

  3. Previous experience- what has been monitored- and how has it been done-C • Species population status – UVC, belt transects, CPUE, interviews.. • Ecological processes e.g. SPAGs - UVC • Habitat health indicators – point intercept transects, photo, videotransects • Socio-economic status including governance and compliance – Household surveys, Key informant/focus group interviews • Physical conditions (temperature) - loggers • Water quality – sampling and analysis

  4. Previous experience- who has been involved in monitoring - J • Community unaided and unsupported by outside agencies • Community assisted directly by outside agency/NGO • Outside agency assisted by community • Outside researchers

  5. Lessons learned- purpose of monitoring- J • LMMA network set out an ambitious framework • Need to define purpose of monitoring- ensure fit for purpose • Monitoring tied to objectives of management plan • Standardisation unlikely to equate to primary motivations/interest of individual sites

  6. Lessons learnt – biological monitoring results - C Methodology issues- not surveyor • Many lessons for the biological monitoring, the main one being: In all the studies reviewed statistical power is not sufficient to detect changes, SD are too high: • Differences in the implementation of the methodologies (number and length of transects varie from site to site) = ?? ( do we really know what is the effort needed?) • Variation of transects needed between sites and species (ex from Fiji LMMA: number of transects needed to detect changes, within the tabu area: Lutjanus gibbus=153, Naso unicornis=200, Scarus ghobban:4, within the control site: Lg=38, Nu=60, Sg=5) • Not enough transects done, wrong placement • Current design not suited for most invertebrates that are too patchily distributed • Analysis done at the species level, if fish assemblage are looked at through multivariate analysis, results are more robust

  7. Lessons learnt – Socio-Economic monitoring results - C • Socioeconomic monitoring: • still very new in most cases, • not many lessons to date except for LMMA network where data have been of a very poor quality. • Development of SEM-Pasifika, training conducted and funds allocated through NOAA and accessible by all PICs but interest has been quite limited so far…is it really needed? • More one-point in time socioeconomic surveys than monitoring • Perceptions: varies quite a lot from the biological surveys • CPUE: low cost and low tech compared to Uderwater Visual Census but sampling effort has to be done over a sufficient amount of time to be relevant

  8. The role of communities in monitoring - J Motivations • Participation/stewardship Successes • Ability of communities to count reliably • Opportunity monitoring presents for AM Challenges • Resourcing- remuneration? • High turnover • On going comittment to monitor

  9. Have monitoring results been used for management? C • Some instances of it being used- though generally results have not be widely used for adaptive management • In Fiji, PNG, 25% of the sites used the results of monitoring for adaptive management • Reasons: • Communities do not understand the results (no training on data interpretation) • Data are not significant • Other factors drive the decision-making • Adaptive management is taking place without the results of monitoring • The data are not relevant to management questions • Certain species are not accurately assessed • Data collected do not inform on resource stocks

  10. Has it been worth it? What information is needed-J • 60% of budget of some project countries spent on monitoring • CBEAFM (vis-a-vis CBAM) in purest form intended to be “learning by doing”

  11. Key questions/issues of concern-J • What information is needed for CEAFM • Who has responsibility for monitoring? • Who should pay for monitoring- and how much of the total budget should be spent on monitoring? • What methods are most cost effective and appropriate?

  12. Direction in Fiji-J • Responsive to community needs • Re-Tired approach • Less-data monitoring at all sites • Community monitoring on specific factors- relevant to them- at small number • Ad-hoc research driven monitoring at small number of sites

More Related